1 hour ago, Zander? said:

 

Darthe setting up eventual and inevitable Wolf rand in pregame lolololololol

I was thinking I might not mind to mod again tbh, but the hardest part for me would be doing VC's.  I don't really have  the chance to read up and count votes anymore.  Maybe instead of modding I could create setups for folks, but then they'd have to be open cause I'd wanna play.

I could help with vote counts if you do ever want to mod and want some assistance :). I have never minded doing them. 

Edited March 29Mar 29 by keyholder21

2 hours ago, Cass said:

 

Had to go Google to find it as it wasn't MU, and I would've sworn it was 120+ but apparently that's all in my head, might have come from Tom's explanatory/coercion PMs?!?!? It was only like 56 players 🤣

 

Despite not being as big as I 'remembered' - that last part of your post about remembering details is relatable XD 

 

My performance was also very quickly forgotten which I think is why I am forever going to believe they're low stakes games. 

 

In that one, one guy was pocketed Village neighbour to Scum and  ? @Cory Caboose made a lolplayername song...

 

 

That player complains about Cory's song to this day 

4 hours ago, Shad_ said:

 

Yeah sure when you know in advance that one of them means you can't be in wolf chat.  Imagine just being told with no context that you are a reclusive self-targetable compulsive fruit vendor lol.  The thought that I might not be supposed to have access never even crossed my mind.  I'm all for RTFM but I shot out the whispers to enter wolf chat before turning to the dictionary.

 

I just wanted to try and sound smart we both know had I not known to look for something I'd never have found it lololololol 

3 hours ago, Darthe said:

I was thinking I might not mind to mod again tbh, but the hardest part for me would be doing VC's.  I don't really have  the chance to read up and count votes anymore.  Maybe instead of modding I could create setups for folks, but then they'd have to be open cause I'd wanna play.

 

WOLFY AF LOLOLOLOLOL 

So anyone plays Blood on the Clocktower?

2 Days to go

6 hours ago, Cass said:

 

Why'd you have to go bust my bubble with potential reality ?!?!?!!!?!?!

 

How many games have you played since your last mash?

 

For me I think I played 1 more, on MU. More madness.

 

But honestly, it did feel like 'lower stakes' than usual after that first one? 

Two there, I just didn't go back to mashes because the stress levels and the emotional rollercoaster of not accepting I couldn't and wasn't meant to keep up was not working out for me. If I ever get that perfectionist streak out of my forum mafia play successfully, I might be in a better place to try again!

 

1 hour ago, csarmi said:

So anyone plays Blood on the Clocktower?

 

I play some. It's tricky trying to get used to, coming off forum mafia, but some of the GMs on the FL server I play on come from BotC so I've run some set-ups and also played some set-ups that blended into mafia more.

(Sorry Ithi, wasn't sure about how to yoink csarmi to the chat lounge.)

I don't mind people posting here. I'm not going to use it for the game anyways

been crickets in here! 

On 3/28/2025 at 3:27 PM, Aarenis said:

I'm curious, and maybe this isn't the place for it: but what's the shift? I don't play on MU enough to notice differences.

 

Didn't ignore this just wanted to chew on it a bit first.

 

If I had to put a finger on it, I think this younger gen feels more compelled on average to defend each other.  Not an inherently bad trait, but exhausting in a Werewolf environment.

 

Everyone reacts to stress differently, and this game can be stressful for sure.  Personalities clash, insults fly, feelings get hurt.  No Werewolf community is immune to these situations.  How they deal with them differs.  I, and I think maybe a lot of you, belong to a generation that ...respected each other's right to not be offended. Sometimes being yelled at or called names kinda amuses me. Sometimes it irritates me but just a little, not in a way that impacts my day. I don't always care, and if I do care I'll be sure to let it be known, and sometimes letting it be known is all I want. I do engage in conflicts often. I'm kind of a magnet for other people's drama. But when I get involved, it's a personal thing. Sometimes I think one party is dead wrong and I want to express my opinion on the topic. Sometimes I think the aggressor has the right of it but is expressing themselves poorly, and I want to offer my gentler perspective on the point they're trying to make. Sometimes I just enjoy engaging in the exercise of conflict resolution. But the consistent feature is it's personal. I am stepping into this arena, and whatever way the ship sails I am now an invested party. My statements are unambiguously my point of view. I might try to paraphrase what someone else has said or apply knowledge based on previous interactions to attempt to speak on their behalf, but you will never see me take offense on their behalf. If I'm hostile towards you, which is rare, rest assured you have crossed my personal threshold of tilt. Maybe I got there observing your behavior without directly engaging you, but it's not about the other guy at that point. I find taking offense on someone else's behalf insulting, disrespectful, imposing. I have no right to assume the thickness of your skin a priori.

 

This is not a perfect world view. People fall through the cracks. I've seen it a lot, especially with passive aggressive bullies who twist the knife subtly into people who can take an awful lot. I've seen it happen to people who play on this site, where the jabs are never clear enough to directly upset me on the sidelines and I remain willfully oblivious to how much they're eating away at the target. I've tried to be more proactive about reaching out to other people like "hey, is this bothering you?" I'm not great at it, but it's a practice I've learned from watching younger generations play. It's something they're better at.

Where we go too far in letting things slide, this younger crowd goes too far in actively policing. I can't speak to the principles ingrained in their heads. Maybe I ought to be able to and the principles in mine that I've just laid out make me stubbornly resistant to getting it. But what I observe is an instinct to protect one another that has obvious value but often ignores context and leads to condemnation prior to harm.  Frequent cases where no party involved has shown the slightest indication that they are upset and passive observers devoid of opinion on the situation blow things up anyway just in case the player is silently bothered.  The benefit is a much kinder, gentler, accommodating environment if you follow their social rules; there's simply zero tolerance for alternatives.  "Toxic anti-toxicity" I've taken to calling it.  Most of these younger players are legitimately nicer to each other than we could ever hope to be. If you buy into their world, you're going to be immersed in compliments and positive encouragement. If that was my world, I think I'd be very happy with it. They certainly seem to know how to make each other feel good about themselves, and they're eager to do it.  But to me it's so superficial, and I see a lot of passive aggressive exploitation.  They're blind to things I'm not, just like I'm blind to things they're not.

 

But man, it's hard for me these days. I see someone call a player a wolf aggressively and you can bet someone will completely discredit the push on the grounds that the pusher is a bully, regardless of the reasoning behind it and the reaction of the accused. I see someone, even politely, criticize a set-up in post game, and guaranteed there will be a wall of posts how daring them for taking issue when the hosts put so much time and effort into developing it--even if the host is receptive to the criticism and regardless of their defenders' own unstated opinions on the quality of the job.  The level of flattery necessary to deliver the vaguest suggestion for improvement in someone's play style without reprisal is oppressively cumbersome.  It cuts out the dingus who has never had a good word to say about anybody, but it also cuts out the people who want to have a sincere non-judgmental chat about ineffective strategy or game design.  A few years back they banned discussion of why teams and players should not win the annual site awards--you are only allowed to say why your preference should win, not why the alternatives should not. And if a player DOES say they're feeling bad, for goodness sake don't be the person they are talking to. Even if you tried your best to be courteous and sincerely apologize, you are guilty.  There's little interest in looking at both sides and pursuing common ground.  Certain passive aggressive people have made an art of this, drawing attention to their emotional state any time their authority is questioned to guarantee blind support.

 

I've been grumbling about this in private for a few years now, but one particular game last year finally did me in and made me authentically disinterested in signing up for future games.  I'll spoiler it since it's a long story in itself:

 

Spoiler

This is not an example of the norm.  It was a perfect storm manifestation of the negative consequences.  The final straw that made me hang up the hat was a mash I played last year where a wolf stated that being called a wolf triggers her anxiety and then immediately got into a heated bus brawl with a team mate.  A villager, rushing to her defense, suggested that we punish her abusers by policy lynching every player who had voted her up to that point.  She agreed that this would be best for her mental health and offered up a list of exclusively villager names, carefully omitting the wolf who'd just bussed her.  Other players wanted in on the white knight action, and the thread derailed into a long argument over whether we should proceed with her plan.  Eventually we were informed that someone else would be replacing her, and the game state recovered.  The village played amazingly and we eliminated almost all of the wolves by the end of Day 2.  But there was a dilemma lurking behind the scenes.

 

See, it is explicitly forbidden in site rules to use your disability to gain a competitive advantage.  If she was a villager, her demand to lynch everyone who caused her anxiety by voting her was not a competitive advantage.  It was just rand, because she did not know their alignments.  If she was a wolf, she unambiguously cheated and would have been mod killed.  While a good host should have mod killed her regardless of her alignment, the fact that she was still alive confirmed that she was a villager.  We assumed the wolves were awarded some other form of compensation like an extra night kill.  MOREOVER, it is explicitly forbidden in the site rules to discuss a player's disability for the purpose of making reads, so we were not allowed to state why she was a confirmed villager.  I and seemingly everyone else reached a gentleman's agreement to all just lie and say she was unquestionably obviously a villager without explanation.  We eliminated her team with ease, and the game played out for the remainder of the grueling week hunting a phantom wolf while discussion of the actual remaining wolf's alignment was forbidden in the site code of conduct.  The only dim shot we ever had was that by the end every villager who had read anything was dead, but it was a bit late at that point.  Wolves had gotten like 30 free kills in by the time fleeting collective memory allowed anyone to question her again.

 

I at least didn't have to endure the last few days of it.  Wolves killed me, I was sent to a spoiled Discord DVC and saw that she was the wolf, and the first words out of my mouth were this is bs and she should be banned from the site.  I was immediately told to leave the server.  The game ended in a wolf victory, obviously.  We were then informed that both her and the team mate who had bussed her were permanently banned from ever playing on the site again.  So what the heck happened?  One of my fellow villagers ventured to ask, and a (younger) moderator popped into the thread and stated that all further discussion of her is forbidden and would be punished.  I reached out to older site staff and wolves to figure out what happened.  I was informed that site staff had forced her to sub out and had banned her, but that the hosts refused to mod kill her and site staff don't have authority to demand mod kills.  As far as I could gather, hosts were in agreement that any villager who voted her was in fact guilty of triggering her anxiety and therefor that wolves pushing to policy lynch them were not making game-related statements and the competitive advantage was a coincidence.  Now remember, this is a mash.  Reading is not expected, and the villagers who survive late are more often than not the ones who didn't have time to read anything early.  So with acknowledgement that wolves cheated forbidden both in DVC and the thread post-game, they just marveled at how good this wolf must have been to convince us earlier players that they were clear.  The wolf slot that cheated and the hosts that refused to mod kill it when the player was banned from the site were immediately nominated for best of the year awards.  To the best of my knowledge, both won their respective awards.  Whether this was compensation for the harm those of us who smelled bull had caused them or out of utter ignorance I'll never know, since it is against the rules to question nominations.

 

Icing on the cake?  When all was said and done, I whispered the wolf at the heart of it all and apologized if I'd upset her when I joined DVC, and she said to me that while yes, she really did experience anxiety in the game, her handling of it was clearly inappropriate and she had no business acting the way she did.  She'd been put in a tight spot trying to play to wincon when villagers suggested we policy lynch the people who voted for her.  All of these people were defending nothing, and if she'd been allowed a heart to heart like this in the game after a few minutes to cool off everything could have just been normal.  Any opportunity for the conflict to self-resolve was buried under a thousand post wall of people discussing policy lynching the players who had, in their opinion, harmed her by calling her posts wolfy and not immediately unvoting when she claimed anxiety.

 

The thread was awash with raving reviews of the hosts and the wolf team we'd butchered and comments that any villager who didn't have fun is just a sore loser.  All contrary opinions were explicitly banned by a moderator.  I have never felt any desire to play a game there again.

 

This sounds like a horror story, and it was, but it was a a worst case scenario and keep in mind: seeing the good in my world and the bad in theirs is easy. Seeing the bad in mine and the good in theirs takes effort. When I think back to all the bull crap people went through there ten years ago because we were excessively tolerant of hostile behavior, were we really any better? Probably not. And wow, if I did subscribe to their social norms, what a cesspool the games of 10 years ago must have been, everyone treating everyone like crap and hurling insults all over the place. I'm personally more comfortable in that higher hostility world.  My values favor open conversation and letting people speak their mind with the consequence that they might get a piece of someone else's in return.  Kindness to me should be a choice we all strive towards, not a mandate we all try to skirt around.  It's too complex of an equation to say where the greater net positive lies.  As always, it's probably somewhere in between.  It's just different, but different in a way that I find stifling and difficult to navigate under the best of circumstances.

Edited March 30Mar 30 by Shad_

I guess I should add that attributing this to generations is baseless.  Yes, it's the current norm on MU and yes, a larger portion of MU players are zoomers than ever before, but I don't have any strong evidence that the two factors are related.  Local culture is driven by the louder voices in it.  It could just be a who are the popular members right now sort of thing that could happen whether they're 16 or 60.

Cheese Louise Shad. That was a roller coaster of a ride.

 

 

15 hours to go

Also it's times like this where I wish we had a 'wow" reaction to choose from.

4 hours ago, Shad_ said:

 

Didn't ignore this just wanted to chew on it a bit first.

 

If I had to put a finger on it, I think this younger gen feels more compelled on average to defend each other.  Not an inherently bad trait, but exhausting in a Werewolf environment.

 

Everyone reacts to stress differently, and this game can be stressful for sure.  Personalities clash, insults fly, feelings get hurt.  No Werewolf community is immune to these situations.  How they deal with them differs.  I, and I think maybe a lot of you, belong to a generation that ...respected each other's right to not be offended. Sometimes being yelled at or called names kinda amuses me. Sometimes it irritates me but just a little, not in a way that impacts my day. I don't always care, and if I do care I'll be sure to let it be known, and sometimes letting it be known is all I want. I do engage in conflicts often. I'm kind of a magnet for other people's drama. But when I get involved, it's a personal thing. Sometimes I think one party is dead wrong and I want to express my opinion on the topic. Sometimes I think the aggressor has the right of it but is expressing themselves poorly, and I want to offer my gentler perspective on the point they're trying to make. Sometimes I just enjoy engaging in the exercise of conflict resolution. But the consistent feature is it's personal. I am stepping into this arena, and whatever way the ship sails I am now an invested party. My statements are unambiguously my point of view. I might try to paraphrase what someone else has said or apply knowledge based on previous interactions to attempt to speak on their behalf, but you will never see me take offense on their behalf. If I'm hostile towards you, which is rare, rest assured you have crossed my personal threshold of tilt. Maybe I got there observing your behavior without directly engaging you, but it's not about the other guy at that point. I find taking offense on someone else's behalf insulting, disrespectful, imposing. I have no right to assume the thickness of your skin a priori.

 

This is not a perfect world view. People fall through the cracks. I've seen it a lot, especially with passive aggressive bullies who twist the knife subtly into people who can take an awful lot. I've seen it happen to people who play on this site, where the jabs are never clear enough to directly upset me on the sidelines and I remain willfully oblivious to how much they're eating away at the target. I've tried to be more proactive about reaching out to other people like "hey, is this bothering you?" I'm not great at it, but it's a practice I've learned from watching younger generations play. It's something they're better at.

Where we go too far in letting things slide, this younger crowd goes too far in actively policing. I can't speak to the principles ingrained in their heads. Maybe I ought to be able to and the principles in mine that I've just laid out make me stubbornly resistant to getting it. But what I observe is an instinct to protect one another that has obvious value but often ignores context and leads to condemnation prior to harm.  Frequent cases where no party involved has shown the slightest indication that they are upset and passive observers devoid of opinion on the situation blow things up anyway just in case the player is silently bothered.  The benefit is a much kinder, gentler, accommodating environment if you follow their social rules; there's simply zero tolerance for alternatives.  "Toxic anti-toxicity" I've taken to calling it.  Most of these younger players are legitimately nicer to each other than we could ever hope to be. If you buy into their world, you're going to be immersed in compliments and positive encouragement. If that was my world, I think I'd be very happy with it. They certainly seem to know how to make each other feel good about themselves, and they're eager to do it.  But to me it's so superficial, and I see a lot of passive aggressive exploitation.  They're blind to things I'm not, just like I'm blind to things they're not.

 

But man, it's hard for me these days. I see someone call a player a wolf aggressively and you can bet someone will completely discredit the push on the grounds that the pusher is a bully, regardless of the reasoning behind it and the reaction of the accused. I see someone, even politely, criticize a set-up in post game, and guaranteed there will be a wall of posts how daring them for taking issue when the hosts put so much time and effort into developing it--even if the host is receptive to the criticism and regardless of their defenders' own unstated opinions on the quality of the job.  The level of flattery necessary to deliver the vaguest suggestion for improvement in someone's play style without reprisal is oppressively cumbersome.  It cuts out the dingus who has never had a good word to say about anybody, but it also cuts out the people who want to have a sincere non-judgmental chat about ineffective strategy or game design.  A few years back they banned discussion of why teams and players should not win the annual site awards--you are only allowed to say why your preference should win, not why the alternatives should not. And if a player DOES say they're feeling bad, for goodness sake don't be the person they are talking to. Even if you tried your best to be courteous and sincerely apologize, you are guilty.  There's little interest in looking at both sides and pursuing common ground.  Certain passive aggressive people have made an art of this, drawing attention to their emotional state any time their authority is questioned to guarantee blind support.

 

I've been grumbling about this in private for a few years now, but one particular game last year finally did me in and made me authentically disinterested in signing up for future games.  I'll spoiler it since it's a long story in itself:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

This is not an example of the norm.  It was a perfect storm manifestation of the negative consequences.  The final straw that made me hang up the hat was a mash I played last year where a wolf stated that being called a wolf triggers her anxiety and then immediately got into a heated bus brawl with a team mate.  A villager, rushing to her defense, suggested that we punish her abusers by policy lynching every player who had voted her up to that point.  She agreed that this would be best for her mental health and offered up a list of exclusively villager names, carefully omitting the wolf who'd just bussed her.  Other players wanted in on the white knight action, and the thread derailed into a long argument over whether we should proceed with her plan.  Eventually we were informed that someone else would be replacing her, and the game state recovered.  The village played amazingly and we eliminated almost all of the wolves by the end of Day 2.  But there was a dilemma lurking behind the scenes.

 

See, it is explicitly forbidden in site rules to use your disability to gain a competitive advantage.  If she was a villager, her demand to lynch everyone who caused her anxiety by voting her was not a competitive advantage.  It was just rand, because she did not know their alignments.  If she was a wolf, she unambiguously cheated and would have been mod killed.  While a good host should have mod killed her regardless of her alignment, the fact that she was still alive confirmed that she was a villager.  We assumed the wolves were awarded some other form of compensation like an extra night kill.  MOREOVER, it is explicitly forbidden in the site rules to discuss a player's disability for the purpose of making reads, so we were not allowed to state why she was a confirmed villager.  I and seemingly everyone else reached a gentleman's agreement to all just lie and say she was unquestionably obviously a villager without explanation.  We eliminated her team with ease, and the game played out for the remainder of the grueling week hunting a phantom wolf while discussion of the actual remaining wolf's alignment was forbidden in the site code of conduct.  The only dim shot we ever had was that by the end every villager who had read anything was dead, but it was a bit late at that point.  Wolves had gotten like 30 free kills in by the time fleeting collective memory allowed anyone to question her again.

 

I at least didn't have to endure the last few days of it.  Wolves killed me, I was sent to a spoiled Discord DVC and saw that she was the wolf, and the first words out of my mouth were this is bs and she should be banned from the site.  I was immediately told to leave the server.  The game ended in a wolf victory, obviously.  We were then informed that both her and the team mate who had bussed her were permanently banned from ever playing on the site again.  So what the heck happened?  One of my fellow villagers ventured to ask, and a (younger) moderator popped into the thread and stated that all further discussion of her is forbidden and would be punished.  I reached out to older site staff and wolves to figure out what happened.  I was informed that site staff had forced her to sub out and had banned her, but that the hosts refused to mod kill her and site staff don't have authority to demand mod kills.  As far as I could gather, hosts were in agreement that any villager who voted her was in fact guilty of triggering her anxiety and therefor that wolves pushing to policy lynch them were not making game-related statements and the competitive advantage was a coincidence.  Now remember, this is a mash.  Reading is not expected, and the villagers who survive late are more often than not the ones who didn't have time to read anything early.  So with acknowledgement that wolves cheated forbidden both in DVC and the thread post-game, they just marveled at how good this wolf must have been to convince us earlier players that they were clear.  The wolf slot that cheated and the hosts that refused to mod kill it when the player was banned from the site were immediately nominated for best of the year awards.  To the best of my knowledge, both won their respective awards.  Whether this was compensation for the harm those of us who smelled bull had caused them or out of utter ignorance I'll never know, since it is against the rules to question nominations.

 

Icing on the cake?  When all was said and done, I whispered the wolf at the heart of it all and apologized if I'd upset her when I joined DVC, and she said to me that while yes, she really did experience anxiety in the game, her handling of it was clearly inappropriate and she had no business acting the way she did.  She'd been put in a tight spot trying to play to wincon when villagers suggested we policy lynch the people who voted for her.  All of these people were defending nothing, and if she'd been allowed a heart to heart like this in the game after a few minutes to cool off everything could have just been normal.  Any opportunity for the conflict to self-resolve was buried under a thousand post wall of people discussing policy lynching the players who had, in their opinion, harmed her by calling her posts wolfy and not immediately unvoting when she claimed anxiety.

 

The thread was awash with raving reviews of the hosts and the wolf team we'd butchered and comments that any villager who didn't have fun is just a sore loser.  All contrary opinions were explicitly banned by a moderator.  I have never felt any desire to play a game there again.

 

This sounds like a horror story, and it was, but it was a a worst case scenario and keep in mind: seeing the good in my world and the bad in theirs is easy. Seeing the bad in mine and the good in theirs takes effort. When I think back to all the bull crap people went through there ten years ago because we were excessively tolerant of hostile behavior, were we really any better? Probably not. And wow, if I did subscribe to their social norms, what a cesspool the games of 10 years ago must have been, everyone treating everyone like crap and hurling insults all over the place. I'm personally more comfortable in that higher hostility world.  My values favor open conversation and letting people speak their mind with the consequence that they might get a piece of someone else's in return.  Kindness to me should be a choice we all strive towards, not a mandate we all try to skirt around.  It's too complex of an equation to say where the greater net positive lies.  As always, it's probably somewhere in between.  It's just different, but different in a way that I find stifling and difficult to navigate under the best of circumstances.

 

How dare you fing WoT at me Shad!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Lololololol 

1 hour ago, Ithillian Turambar said:

15 hours to go

 

 

4 hours ago, Shad_ said:

If I had to put a finger on it, I think this younger gen feels more compelled on average to defend each other.  Not an inherently bad trait, but exhausting in a Werewolf environment.

Thanks for the thought-out response! That game (in the spoilers) was one hell of a rollercoaster

 

It's a little surprising to me in that compared to some of the communities I've played in, MU is actually considered a far more toxic environment, though I wonder if some of the people commenting on MU toxicity actually had this kind of toxic anti-toxicity in mind. 

 

4 hours ago, Shad_ said:

I guess I should add that attributing this to generations is baseless.  Yes, it's the current norm on MU and yes, a larger portion of MU players are zoomers than ever before, but I don't have any strong evidence that the two factors are related.  Local culture is driven by the louder voices in it.  It could just be a who are the popular members right now sort of thing that could happen whether they're 16 or 60.

 

Fair, though I wouldn't disagree with the sense it's related. I've seen similar dynamics play out in younger fandoms (by demographic) where there've been a lot of reckonings with people who come back to fandoms and then say they were pushed out and felt too intimidated to push back against aggro and then that no one cared to stick up for them. At some point it did become a sort of imperative to say something or to be part of the problem (and that sort of framing just feeds directly into the mindset you describe IMO.) Kind of want to say the shift happened around '19 but not dead sure of this, as I was in and out of those spaces. Dunno if it's a zoomer problem specifically since I think we millenials have to take a fair share of it.

Less than 12 hours to go....

 

 

21 minutes ago, Turin Turambar said:

Less than 12 hours to go....

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Aarenis said:

 

It's a little surprising to me in that compared to some of the communities I've played in, MU is actually considered a far more toxic environment, though I wonder if some of the people commenting on MU toxicity actually had this kind of toxic anti-toxicity in mind. 

 

 

Not asking you to go find out, but I'm super curious what aspect of the site they were involved in and when.  Champs, small games, mashes, Discord...  They all have a bit of variance due to the size of the player base and so many people only participating in one or two of these.  I've spent more time on MU than anywhere else on the internet in my 30 years of being actively online, so it's always interesting to me who takes issue where.

 

While I'm not at all happy with the state of mashes right now and don't think it's a coincidence that I started drifting away from the Discord when some of the same people became active there, I do think that on average over the course of 10 years the place has maintained a very healthy environment.  I won't be surprised if I find myself more involved again when certain people have moved on. 

3 hours ago, Zander? said:

 

How dare you fing WoT at me Shad!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Lololololol 

 

Good news is you'll almost certainly never see me do it in a live game these days.  XD

1 hour ago, Zander? said: